Torah and Christian Bible

[Rival]

Yes, I understand that very well. Why do you think so many are turning from God in the UK? They have been deceived into thinking that because Genesis is somehow wrong they should just throw the whole Bible into the trash. Satan is hard at work, as always.

They're not turning from G-d. You just have a very narrow view.

 

[Brickjectivity]

With a respectful discourse Jews, and Christians, let me ask Jews first, between the first five books of the Bible to the gospels, what was the reason those books outside the NT that didn't match the teachings and continuation of the Torah?

Christians (and Jews too), the bible OT is about a lot of history more so than words of wisdom. The only wisdom I can find in the OT is Romans. Hebrews, Psalms, and Proverbs (at least those I've read) and the NT mostly Gospels, Galatians Eccs., Acts, and a few others.

In regards to the finding wisdom and spiritual insight, what does the history of these different people, Israelites, Babylonians, etc offer you? Are there physical teachings that says what one must do rather than things like love thy neighbor and have faith?

What do you guys learn from the OT in full?

I think a good compromise for Christians is to refer to the OT and NT as 'Old Treasure' and 'New Treasure' rather than calling them old and new testaments since treasure becomes more valuable over time. The Psalmist says the Law is better than gold. Gold does not tarnish, so calling the OT 'Old Testament' is insulting. I think Jesus would not have called it that. I also think this is a reasonable compromise for Christians to make in the interest of healing old hostilities where people have been killed and the Torah insulted in the past. In explaining this 'Old Treasure' and 'New Treasure' you can refer to Matthew 13:52 where Jesus says "Therefore every teacher of the law who has become a disciple in the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old" not that I am suggesting you have to be a teacher of the law to refer to it. Both are really one treasure. I'm only proposing we take a small step up from the insulting term 'Old Testament' toward something that better represents the situation.

Two boats, one destination. I think the laws are part of a living system which has as its goal the same goal as "Glory to God in the highest and on Earth, peace, good will towards all men." Although this phrase is from the Christian gospels nativity story it is Matthew's interpretation of the purpose of the law. When you read the story of the women at the well or the woman who is about to be stoned and so forth or the beatitudes, these are representations of the law as Christians interpret it. A person who lives that law and reads the gospels is probably much more affected than just anyone reading the gospels, because it references the beauty in the law that they are living. You can get some of the same affect by becoming familiar with the law. If you only read the NT it reads like a grocery list of advice. The law is more experiential I think.

What's really nice about the law is that it has civilized the world over long stretch of time by setting a standard higher than what most people had and demonstrating it. It has been a civilizing force improving life for many people. That is wherever Jews have been permitted to live they have worked for the benefit of the place where they've been.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think a good compromise for Christians is to refer to the OT and NT as 'Old Treasure' and 'New Treasure' rather than calling them old and new testaments since treasure becomes more valuable over time. The Psalmist says the Law is better than gold. Gold does not tarnish, so calling the OT 'Old Testament' is insulting. I think Jesus would not have called it that. I also think this is a reasonable compromise for Christians to make in the interest of healing old hostilities where people have been killed and the Torah insulted in the past. In explaining this 'Old Treasure' and 'New Treasure' you can refer to Matthew 13:52 where Jesus says "Therefore every teacher of the law who has become a disciple in the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old" not that I am suggesting you have to be a teacher of the law to refer to it. Both are really one treasure. I'm only proposing we take a small step up from the insulting term 'Old Testament' toward something that better represents the situation.

Two boats, one destination. I think the laws are part of a living system which has as its goal the same goal as "Glory to God in the highest and on Earth, peace, good will towards all men." Although this phrase is from the Christian gospels nativity story it is Matthew's interpretation of the purpose of the law. When you read the story of the women at the well or the woman who is about to be stoned and so forth or the beatitudes, these are representations of the law as Christians interpret it. A person who lives that law and reads the gospels is probably much more affected than just anyone reading the gospels, because it references the beauty in the law that they are living. You can get some of the same affect by becoming familiar with the law. If you only read the NT it reads like a grocery list of advice. The law is more experiential I think.

What's really nice about the law is that it has civilized the world over long stretch of time by setting a standard higher than what most people had and demonstrating it. It has been a civilizing force improving life for many people. That is wherever Jews have been permitted to live they have worked for the benefit of the place where they've been.

Do you personally know why the Torah stops at Deuteronomy and why the Torah does not have Joshua through Malachi from a Christian point of view?

One Jew says that it's because the rest of the books do not have the Laws. What are your views about why those books aren't part of the Torah? Do you agree? Disagree?

 

[RabbiO]

Do you personally know why the Torah stops at Deuteronomy and why the Torah does not have Joshua through Malachi from a Christian point of view?

One Jew says that it's because the rest of the books do not have the Laws. What are your views about why those books aren't part of the Torah? Do you agree? Disagree?

Let's try this one more time shall we?

The Hebrew bible, Jewish scripture, is commonly referred to as the Tanakh. Basically, the Tanakh is what you refer to as the OT. Tanakh is a Hebrew acronym for the three sections that comprise it, which in English are the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings. Got that so far?

In order of sacredness the Torah is the most sacred, the Writings are the least. From the traditional vantage, as someone once put it, the Torah is words by G-d, the Prophets are words from G-d, and the Writings are words about G-d.

If you ask why does the Torah not include Joshua through Malachi - which by the way is the Christian arrangement of Hebrew scripture, not the arrangement within Judaism, the answer depends, in part, on how you view how and when those writings became part of the canon. For example, traditional Judaism believes in Torah m'Sinai, that the Torah was dictated by G-d to Moses.

 

[Rival]

Do you personally know why the Torah stops at Deuteronomy and why the Torah does not have Joshua through Malachi from a Christian point of view?

One Jew says that it's because the rest of the books do not have the Laws. What are your views about why those books aren't part of the Torah? Do you agree? Disagree?

Uh, this isn't really an issue of opinion. It's a fact. The Torah contains the Law. The other books consist of history, wisdom literature and prophecy.

 

[rosends]

As Rabbi O mentioned, some of this boils down to naming conventions.

The word "Torah" is used at different times to refer to different things:

1. The 5 books of Moses (as the "Torah" part of the Tanach, the corpus of Jewish written law)
2. The entire written text (we use the phrase "the written Torah" to include the whole Tanach)
3. The entire of the canon of Jewish text/law (the oral Torah and the written Torah)

In point of fact we do learn at least one set of laws from outside the 5 books.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm being honest. All the Jews so far on this site has been a bit saracstic with my questions. What's up with that?

Let's try this one more time shall we?

The Hebrew bible, Jewish scripture, is commonly referred to as the Tanakh. Basically, the Tanakh is what you refer to as the OT. Tanakh is a Hebrew acronym for the three sections that comprise it, which in English are the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings. Got that so far?

In order of sacredness the Torah is the most sacred, the Writings are the least. From the traditional vantage, as someone once put it, the Torah is words by G-d, the Prophets are words from G-d, and the Writings are words about G-d.

If you ask why does the Torah not include Joshua through Malachi - which by the way is the Christian arrangement of Hebrew scripture, not the arrangement within Judaism, the answer depends, in part, on how you view how and when those writings became part of the canon. For example, traditional Judaism believes in Torah m'Sinai, that the Torah was dictated by G-d to Moses.

From a Christian point of view...

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Uh, this isn't really an issue of opinion. It's a fact. The Torah contains the Law. The other books consist of history, wisdom literature and prophecy.

Eh. Jews say the prophecy wasn't fulfilled by Jesus, but Christians say otherwise.

Is this a historical fact as well, or?

 

[Tumah]

the Torah is words by G-d, the Prophets are words from G-d, and the Writings are words about G-d.

I like that!

 

[Tumah]

In point of fact we do learn at least one set of laws from outside the 5 books.

Which one are you referring to?

 

[rosends]

Which one are you referring to?

Purim.

 

[Tumah]

Purim.

Oh, haha. I couldn't figure out what you were talking about. I should have realized.

 

[RabbiO]

The bible, new and old testaments, are stolen Pagan allegories replaced with Jewish characters..........to remove sprituality

For those not familiar with our new member, she took umbrage at my referring to her as a neo-Nazi on another thread because she wants to be known as a National Socialist. I guess I should have abstained from using the neo- prefix.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Do you personally know why the Torah stops at Deuteronomy and why the Torah does not have Joshua through Malachi from a Christian point of view?

One Jew says that it's because the rest of the books do not have the Laws. What are your views about why those books aren't part of the Torah? Do you agree? Disagree?

So, at the risk of adding confusion to confusion 10 fold

There is no such thing as THE bible (there is a protestant bible, a catholic bible, the torah, apocrypha, etc.)

Speaking of the protestent bible
First 5 books, attributed to Moses, the law giver ( at least ends in his death and the hebrews coming into the land of milk and honey, when history might actually be accurate)

Everything else in the old testament, Johual up until the gospels, is ancient, pre-jesus scripture, that 3rd century church fathers considered important, relevant, or pretty.

The gospels supposedly tell the life of Jesus and are the beginning of the NT. Everything after that is posturing to build/maintain control of believers.

 

[Flankerl]

I'm being honest. All the Jews so far on this site has been a bit saracstic with my questions. What's up with that?

For me personally: You asked whether Israel was used after the Torah.
It just shows me that you didn't even read the very first chapter of the Prophets in which Israel is mentioned at the very beginning.

That is either lazy or shows me that the person doesn't actually care.

 

[Tarheeler]

I'm being honest. All the Jews so far on this site has been a bit sarcastic with my questions. What's up with that?

Because we get really tired of explaining things to you over and over.

Even after multiple people told you that Hebrews and Romans was not part of the Jewish Bible, which could have been easily verified by either opening a Bible or a 5 second Google search, you still insisted they were. Multiple people have explained the naming convention used for our Bible, and yet you're still feigning ignorance.

 

[DavidFirth]

They're not turning from G-d. You just have a very narrow view.

You'd better look again.

Christians Outnumbered By Atheists In England And Wales, Religious Identity Report Reveals | HuffPost UK

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I went to a Synagogue one time to ask about the religion and the Jew was rude to me there too. It's not the questions and RF. Something about your dislike with Christianity or someone asking about your faith tips a lot of you off. I see it with other people here too. It's not attractive.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Do you personally know why the Torah stops at Deuteronomy and why the Torah does not have Joshua through Malachi from a Christian point of view?

One Jew says that it's because the rest of the books do not have the Laws. What are your views about why those books aren't part of the Torah? Do you agree? Disagree?

Let's try this one more time shall we?

This is not addressed to you. It is addressed to @Brickjectivity . You are not a Christian; so, you would have a different answer.

Second, you can't answer what is Brick's views on what one of you who have already my question nor can you agree or disagree because you are not Christian.

Don't reply to posts that are not addressed to you unless it is something new and not sarcastic.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think a good compromise for Christians is to refer to the OT and NT as 'Old Treasure' and 'New Treasure' rather than calling them old and new testaments since treasure becomes more valuable over time. The Psalmist says the Law is better than gold. Gold does not tarnish, so calling the OT 'Old Testament' is insulting. I think Jesus would not have called it that. I also think this is a reasonable compromise for Christians to make in the interest of healing old hostilities where people have been killed and the Torah insulted in the past. In explaining this 'Old Treasure' and 'New Treasure' you can refer to Matthew 13:52 where Jesus says "Therefore every teacher of the law who has become a disciple in the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old" not that I am suggesting you have to be a teacher of the law to refer to it. Both are really one treasure. I'm only proposing we take a small step up from the insulting term 'Old Testament' toward something that better represents the situation.

Two boats, one destination. I think the laws are part of a living system which has as its goal the same goal as "Glory to God in the highest and on Earth, peace, good will towards all men." Although this phrase is from the Christian gospels nativity story it is Matthew's interpretation of the purpose of the law. When you read the story of the women at the well or the woman who is about to be stoned and so forth or the beatitudes, these are representations of the law as Christians interpret it. A person who lives that law and reads the gospels is probably much more affected than just anyone reading the gospels, because it references the beauty in the law that they are living. You can get some of the same affect by becoming familiar with the law. If you only read the NT it reads like a grocery list of advice. The law is more experiential I think.

What's really nice about the law is that it has civilized the world over long stretch of time by setting a standard higher than what most people had and demonstrating it. It has been a civilizing force improving life for many people. That is wherever Jews have been permitted to live they have worked for the benefit of the place where they've been.

Okay. Let me ask you.

Between the Torah, the last book and the first book of the gospel, what does the other books serve in significance in the Christian faith other than the law that Jesus refers to in the Torah and Jesus' life in the gospels, the establishment of the Church, and so forth in the NT?